7 Reasons Why Our Drinking Age Is Nationally Embarrassing/Unconstitutional

1. Because if I can prove it is, maybe some one will take pity on me and send me some Papst-bier.

2. Because the only evidence in favor of a higher drinking age is that, upon moving the drinking age to 21, there were less alcohol-related crashes for the age group 18-20. Sweet, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and guess what else? If the drinking age was moved to 25, there’d be less alcohol-related crashes for the age group 18-24! And if you banned knives, there would be — wait for it — less knife-related accidents! If you banned doughnuts — wait for it — you’d be a jerk! All of which leads me to numero fathreezy:

How are you not going to listen to whatever on earth comes from this face?

3. “The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” -G.K. Chesterton.

The point being yes, less people of a certain age group died when we raised the drinking age, but only because we took away their freedom. If a man isn’t free to screw up, he’s not free at all.

4. Because the government only raised the drinking age out of anti-Catholic sentiment. We’re not stupid. As far as I can tell — and I’ve performed extensive studies on the subject — Catholics enjoy only three American pastimes: Drinking, Stephen Colbert and procreation. They’ve limited one. Stephen’s next, isn’t he?

And here’s the truly bizarre thing: Only 31 states allow a religious exemption for alcohol consumption. So if you’re not currently shacked up in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, or Wyoming, and you are under 21, you are breaking the law every time you receive the blood of Christ. Which, to be honest, is pretty badass.

But don’t worry, tell them you were only breaking the law in accidence, not in substance.

5. Because you can kill your baby, watch violent pornography, be executed, die for your country, and get married, all before you can drink. Our ancestors aren’t ashamed of us so much as they are utterly confused. Are you what, Moloch-worshippers? Hedonists? Christians? For their sanity as well as our own, let us be consistent. When drinking is placed as the end-all of things-you’re-allowed, no one can enjoy it as the good Lord intended. How is one supposed to drink something as simple and sacramental as a beer with any sort of dignity if it has been pumped up as a thing so wild and dangerous that the only responsibility one must wait longer for is the adoption a child? (And shouldn’t there be some commas in that sentence?) Besides, by insisting upon being some deformed cross between the Hedonists and the Christians, we’re only insulting Christ and Hedon. Those Greeks — in all their godless glory — held that wine was the greatest trainer of adolescent men, teaching them polite society and the limitation of their passions (Plato’s Symposium). The Bible tries to be as logical and calculating as the Greeks, but ends up just getting really, really excited about drinking:

“Give beer to those who are perishing,
wine to those who are in anguish;
let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.” Proverbs 31:6

Our current drinking philosophy manages the incredible trick of annoying everyone except Southern Baptists.

Thank God for that.

6. Because the whole reason we have a 21+ drinking age is — surprise, surprise — federal blackmail. The Federal Aid Highway Act stipulates that a state that does not enforce the minimum age of 21 receives a 10% decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment. Who needs to pay attention to state’s rights when you’ve got all the tax money? Necessary and proper my arse.

7. And this is really the issue. Because the drinking age is so ridiculously high, there is scarcely any distinguishing between drinking and drunkenness. If you don’t learn to drink with your meal, how are you expected to drink moderately at a bar? If alcohol is illegal to 18 year olds, how is there an expectation that it will be treated as anything but an illegal substance, and thus abused? Why do you think the most popular beers in America are objectively crappy light beers? I’ll tell you this, it’s not because waiting until 21 to buy beer has made us classy and mature drinkers. I propose, with the commentor who suggested it for me, civil disobedience.

  • http://profiles.google.com/jeniwilmot Jeni W

    “you are breaking the law every time you receive the blood of Christ. Which, to be honest, is pretty badass.

    But don’t worry, tell them you were only breaking the law in accidence, not in substance.”

    HA! This is great. And I am with you. It’s ageism; it really is. Seriously.

  • R.Davison

    I grew up in a teetotaling family, yet I do intend to drink when I’m of age. I might even cross the Tiber in a few short years, but that’s beside the point. My primary concern is with your seventh point, and I’ve heard other friends argue the same thing: how is learning to drink while young neccasarily going to teach us how to drink while older? Should we pursue sex as much so that when we have reached the fullness of time in marriage we will know how to do sex right? That’s really the only parallel example I can legitimately advance, but I stand by it.
    Additionally, I’ve not understood the expectation of misbehavior argument. Why can’t we expect children to behave well? Because of their sin nature and what not. Yet we still should expect them to behave rightly, according to both the Law of God and of Man.
    Could you provide some clarity?

    • Anonymous

      No, but you should not pursue sex, but you should pursue chastity, that is to say positive purity instead of just negative abstinence. In the same way since drinking is not a sin, but rather a a wonderful gift of God, drinking as a simple part of life is good training to avoid drunkenness; you take away the desire to binge drink, the this-beer-sucks-but-i-can-chug-it mentality, and the general mystique of alcohol. The fact that learning to drink at a younger age is a good idea is pretty much proven by the fact that Europe, with across-the-board lower drinking ages and a cultural habit of letting children drink from age 5+, has lower incidents of alcohol-related crashes.

      Why can’t we expect children to behave well? I’m not sure if I can answer that besides with this: All of human experience shows, you just can’t. That’s why parenting matters.

      • Oenonewept

        of course they drive far less often than people in the States do, considering their insane petrol prices and an easily accessible public transportation system. I’d like to see the ratio of alcohol-related crashes in European countries individually to the U.S. to see if your hypothesis is true.

        • Rose Kovach

          The other reason there are so many fewer alcohol-related crashes in Europe is because the legal blood alcohol content is 0.00% in most places. And, if you’re caught drinking and driving, you lose your license. Period. That’s one of the problems I have with claiming that a higher drinking age reduces drunk driving. A drunk driver is no less dangerous at age 50 than at age 18. (For example… did you hear about the Steubie mayor a few months back?) If the US *really* wanted to reduce drunk driving, lowering and enforcing the legal blood alcohol content would have much more effect than changing the drinking age.

          I can speak from personal experience that so much of the desire to drink underage is from the simple fact that it is forbidden. My family lived in Europe the year I was 18 and I would occasionally go out and have a drink with my friends. When we returned to the States around my 19th birthday, I wanted to drink more than I ever had while in Europe, simply because it was now a “big deal.” I no longer could simply go out and have that one cocktail with friends because I was no longer considered an adult in the country where I was living. Thankfully, living in OH, my parents had no problem going out and buying me some alcohol. I had no more than one drink a week (legally because I was in my parents’ house with their permission) for the rest of the summer before moving for college and simply because it was no longer the “forbidden fruit” I didn’t want anything more than that.

          • Angets

            In most places it’s not 0.00% though. It’s more like 0.05%, which is still lower than in the US.

  • Orange_planet

    I agree with you about your main point and most of your support I also understand – except # 3 is a little…not objective enough for me. Could not the legalization of abortion also fall under the category of “we should have the freedom to mess up?” perhaps i misunderstood what you were writing, because you seem to be the kind of person to understand freedom not as “being able to do whatever the hell you want,” but as “being able to and having the right to do what is right.” One might argue that abortion is harming someone ELSE and so not the same as beligerant drunkenness, but I believe that beligerant drunkenness also harms other people, even if that person doesn’t drive.
    Other than that I laughed pretty much the whole time and feel wholeheartedly about it, and I’m not even underage!

    • Anonymous

      Good point. I’m all for the enforcement of public drunkenness laws, and insanely strict drinking and driving laws. i.e. if your drinking is harming others, it should be condemned. Having said that, this could be avoided if changed the cultural attitude that if you drink you must get drunk, an attitude i believe is caused by the 21+ law

      • Oldenoughtoknowbetter

        That’s not true. I attended college when the drinking age was 18 and most universities had a ratskeller on campus (some even built by breweries themselves) and allowed keg parties in dorms. Many – most, even – students drank to excess, and had been drinking since they were even younger. My friends and I were regularly going barhopping when we were 16 and fake IDs were ridiculously easy to get since drivers’ licenses didn’t have photos. We hit every bar from the clubs in the East Village to Studio 54 to the saloons and bars on 1st Ave every single weekend and got shitfaced drunk, and then probably headed over to the park to get high. And all this while attending very snooty and exclusive Catholic single-sex prep schools and getting straight As and going on to take our party habits off to top tier universities. Of course, we were city kids and took cabs and rode the subways. We didn’t have access to cars and wouldn’t want to have to waste time looking for parking even if we did.

        My two youngest brothers grew up with a 21 year drinking age and the only difference in their drinking habits was that they started later than we did. It’s pretty easy for a 16 year old girl, for example, to look 18, but it’s a lot harder for a 16 year old boy to look 21, no matter how good their fake ID is. It’s probably just as hard for an 18 year old boy to look 21, actually, to an experienced bouncer or bartender. The penalties for having an underage person in a bar are also much steeper and can even result in loss of liquor license. This may lead to more underground drinking, but I doubt it. Even if the drinking age was lowered to 18, most college kids can’t afford to drink at a bar on weekend nights, especially in major urban areas. The cheapest beer is at least $5 at a bar. Mixed drinks? Forget about it. Easily $12 and up. Wine? Same as mixed drinks.

        Forbidden fruit is always attractive to the young and inexperienced. The difference in age limit merely shifts the behavior a little, and even then only for a few years.

        The problem is, as you say, the drunk driving thing. The choice was to raise the driving age, raise the drinking age, or both. It was a lot easier to raise the drinking age than the driving age, especially in rural areas where it is impossible to get to work without driving.

        And, while we’re on the subject of drinking and driving, the truth is that there is a problem with young, inexperienced, easily-led teenagers getting behind the wheel of a car while drinking. They overestimate their abilities, they underestimate their impairment, they succumb to peer pressure too easily, and the damage one stupid choice made while drinking can last forever — lawsuits that deplete savings, the guilt over causing other people’s death and severe injuries, debilitating injury to oneself, or even one’s own death.

      • Gman

        I think the attitude of drinking to get drunk comes in part from the insane 21y/o rule, but only a small part. I once asked an Italian cafe owner outside Rome how he handled his 19 year old son, considering the kid had every legal right in Italy to drink up a storm. He told me that while, yes, he had grown up drinking and so the mystique of it was lost a bit, there was just a cultural understanding that if you got wasted you were a moron. It meant you couldn’t handle your liquor. And for this Father, it meant if his son ever came home sloshed he would have to spend the night somewhere else. For him it would be an embarrassment – bringing dishonor on the house. The understanding was his son was more than welcome to drink, but every adult in town would consider him a complete fool if he, well, came home acting like a fool. I think that is a cultural understanding of alcohol greater than any one law can create or disintegrate on its own. Until parents and friends treat alcohol with maturity, I wouldn’t expect a law or lack thereof to fix much.

    • http://twitter.com/mommyfollows C. J.

      Our rights end where the rights of others begin; abortion = taking away another human being’s right to life. Not the same as putting alcohol in your own body just as Jesus did.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=762004721 Clorisa Brown

    I loved number 4

  • http://twitter.com/bookwrm17 Catherine C

    Most states do allow minors to consume alcohol in private or with parental supervision. My parents started teaching me how to drink responsibly when I was 12. Theoretically, most families are free to adopt this attitude – the problem is that they don’t, but instead look at people like my parents as if they’re insane because they let their teenage children have a glass of wine with dinner.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeanette-Hancock/1451440326 Jeanette Hancock

    I was 18 when my country dropped the drinking age from 20 to 18 with much the same arguments you’ve made (only in a New Zealand context), that was in ’99. Its proven to be an absolute disaster, kids are drinking themselves to death. When the age was 20 you’d get a few crazy drunk 18 year olds about the place, now we get drunk 12 years old, and its not rare.

    The thing that really gets me, is the 18 year old drunks driving, now, they may kill themselves and its their own fault, but the horror happens when its not a tree they plough into, but rather another car carrying innocent people minding their own business.

    Sure, it can be a bit draconian, but its had only negative results down here. I now heartily support jacking it back up to 20.

    • Marc

      Too be honest, you’re on to something. Now that we’ve made it 21, we’ve established a precedent. Moving it back could be a disaster. A further curse on whoever moved it up then.

    • Muerknz

      I am also a New Zealander and I completely agree with this. Dropping the drinking age has been terrible and I wish it would go back to 20 as well.

  • Gilbert

    I wanted to take pity on you, but apparently your postage laws are also unconstitutional. So I suppose you need to convince someone on your side of customs …

  • CTPAPIST

    “But don’t worry, tell them you were only breaking the law in accidence, not in substance.”
    ABSOLUTELY HYSTERICAL!!!

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

    I give my eight year old alcohol. He wants a sip of what everyone else is drinking, eh… why not.

  • Courtney Maltais

    I really liked number 4 as well.

    Just to add my 2 cents from North of your border. I live in one of the provinces where the drinking age is 18. Also, my parents are an antonym of teetotaler, so I have been drinking small amounts since 14. Other than a few incidences, which were still supervised, I have been pretty good with alcohol.

    I’m 21 now, and I went down to the US with my family a few months ago. I thought it was ridiculous how much older I felt than my peers because of our attitudes towards drinking. I had my one margarita with lunch, while others were doing shots at noon.

    Do teenagers here drink themselves to death? Yes, sometimes. And yes, there are drunk drivers (which has gone down alot with more awareness). But when my friends and I drink, it’s usually a beer or two, not a keg stand.

  • Christine Smith

    We live in Pennsylvania, which has probably the most antiquated, Quaker-inspired alcohol laws of any State. Regardless… my husband and I are just starting our family but fully intend to introduce our children to responsible and enjoyable drinking while they are young. We hope to serve wine with dinner from time to time (if we can fit it into the budget), and maybe we’d let them have small amounts of beer or even cocktails – if they aren’t too strong – on certain occasions (my uncle always whips up Brandy Alexanders on Christmas Eve, for example. Everyone has some, even when they’re underage).

    Basically, I think kids need to learn to appreciate alcohol for more than its ability to get you drunk. And under the watchful eyes of their parents, they will have that opportunity. I think the major reason teenagers (and young adults, for that matter) think it’s so great to sneak alcohol and get rip-roaring drunk every chance they get is because alcohol is seen as this precious thing that’s been denied to them all their lives. If they grow up with it being commonplace, I think there would be less tendency towards overdoing it.

  • EB Girard

    Nice article :) … Now, is it civil disobedience ? Or just refusing to comply with unjust laws?

  • http://twitter.com/PHoelscher17 Patrick Hoelscher

    Ha! I’ve been making most of these same arguments to my parents for years! I’m a sophomore at Texas A&M right now, and I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that I can’t have a beer with my older friends. Bravo to you, sir.

  • MA

    I agree with most of this, but what about the people who die every year from getting hit by drunk 18-20 year olds?

    • J1militans

      Yes. Is it more important to be free to drink or to have more people alive?

    • Rose

      As you say, people are already dying from being hit by drunk 18-20 year olds. Changing the legal drinking age wouldn’t start this, it’s already happening. What it could change would be the “forbidden fruit” temptation of drinking in excess. An 18 year old who legally has one drink and waits a responsible amount of time before driving is going to be much less danger than the 20 year old who binges because it’s forbidden and then causes a 10 car pile-up.

  • http://twitter.com/Pmccrsp Fr. Peter Calabrese

    But don’t worry, tell them you were only breaking the law in accidence, not in substance.

    Love it a new tagline!

  • Sean P. Dailey

    What is the citation for the Bible Quote?

    Thanks,
    Sean P. Dailey
    Editor-in-Chief, Gilbert Magazine

  • John Henry

    ROFL @ “breaking the law in accidence, not substance.”

  • Michael

    So by the rationale of #7 if you don’t have sex before you are married, how is there an expectation that it will be treated as anything but an immoral, and thus abused?

    • http://catholiceconomist.wordpress.com/ Buster Adams

      So, you’re comparing a complete lack of virtue to practicing virtue? Doesn’t hold brother. Get a new example.

      So with sex one should practice…chastity or being chaste so when one enters marriage, one remains chaste with their wife. With alcohol one should practice temperance, which does not mean fully abstaining but is…moderation!

      Get it?

  • Jay E.

    Thank you! My thoughts exactly. We are Catholics. We fear no beer.

    • Marc

      bwahahaha

  • J1militans

    I don’t buy it. Nor do I see a necessity for this post at this blog that otherwise seems to hit right on.

  • Filiusdextris

    Not sure where you got your state list from. Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Missouri, and Rhode Island all have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts passed at the state level. There’s a federal one too. All passed since the Free Exercise of Religion was taken away in 1990 in Employment Division v. Smith. These rights guarantee Free Exercise in their respective territories unless there is a compelling state interest narrowly tailored (as there would not be here). Minnesota’s courts (and a few others which you list) also give this right through judicial interpretation of its state constitution. My state, Florida’s can be found at § 761.01, Fla. Stat. (2011).

  • J1imilitans

    I don’t have time nor energy to get into the arguments, but I mean, that we have freedom isn’t an excuse: a person 16 isn’t “free” to buy guns, so in order to make them “free” must we allow ALL people ALL ages to buy guns? And as someone said below, I suppose it’s best for people to have freedom than for less people to die from people 18-20 yr old drinking and driving? :/

    • J1militans

      And the whole maturity/moderation thing, so I guess we must also have sex before marriage since we need to learn it so by when we get married we don’t end up using our wives as masturbation-tools, so to speak; or in other words, so we have a moderate sexual life?

      • James H

        Except that having sex without commitment is already using another as a masturbation aid. Only if you mean what you say by sex (total, lifelong self-giving) are you telling the truth of the act.

        Unlike alcohol, sex isn’t designed to be just another recreation. Be mindful, Anakin, your thoughts betray you…

  • Claire Verde

    Having a license is the priviledge. If one wants to truly stop accidents, raise the DRVING age. Then watch Catholic mothers with 7 kids go insane as they have to drive their kids everywhere until they are 19 or 20.
    I agree with what you said. It is LUDICRIOUS to be able to vote, marry, fight for your country, etc. and NOT drink. And J1imilitans, the point is, a person 18 (not 16) is free to buy guns. At 18 your are legally declared an adult. You can be put on death row. How does it logically follow that you are an adult, but you may not have a drink. That is crazy.

  • Actress2bjess

    The human brain doesn’t stop developing until age 25, and those who drink more as young people end up with smaller prefrontal cortexes, which is the area of the brain used for decision-making. I’m definitely not saying the age of legal alcohol consumption should be raised to 25 (especially since I turn 21 in February :)), but the brain is way closer to being done developing at 21 than it is at 18.

    • http://catholiceconomist.wordpress.com/ Buster Adams

      Most of those studies are done with binge drinking. However, there has been recent studies showing that small amounts of wine drank by a pregnant mother reduces anxiety in her unborn children, increased brain development, &c.

  • http://twitter.com/shawnmeagher Shawn Meagher

    I think I’ll go pour a glass of single malt.

  • Guest

    hahahahaha like like like like like

  • Musician Brew

    In response to those citations by commentators of instances of a lowering the drinking age causing more problems: Such instances are like pulling a knife from a wound. It is absurdity to expecting it to stop bleeding immediately. American society is steeped in the brew of the 21-year drinking age. It’s a sort of knife wound, and there’s no easy way out.

    Let me share a story with you. When I was 20 years of age I went to a summer school program in Cambridge, England. There I was joined with fellow college students from around the globe. At nighttime, naturally, some of these kids had parties. I attended some of these events, drank a little beer (didn’t have much- nasty, cheap beer,) and observed the students. By and large, the American students went crazy over their newfound freedom and got horribly drunk. Those students that came from countries with higher drinking ages, the Europeans, for example, were much less fazed. Some drank; some didn’t. They weren’t so excited about it. I was an unusual American because I come from a family pretty closely attached to the motherland and drank wine from a young age. As I matured I was allowed to drink more until I was off on my own. I never got drunk growing up… I enjoyed good wine and other things. These other American’s weren’t so fortunate.
    If we were to lift/lower the drinking age, I believe it would have a similar effect as going to England for a month. I’m for lowering it, but I say there needs to be some strategy, lest it backfire.

  • Anna

    In regard to #2, do you have a way to make sure that those young drivers, who tend to have more accidents anyway, kill only themselves when they add the poor decision to drink and drive to other, inexperience-based poor decisions? MADD is primarily a group of those whose family members/friends have been killed in drunk-driving crashes by *someone else* who was drunk, so the sarcasm aimed at them seems a bit much (and no, I’m not a member). If personal freedom ends where harm to others begins, well, fewer drunk-driving crashes in that age group means fewer innocent people killed by that age group.
    I also don’t buy that there’s no way to learn responsible drinking if you don’t start drinking young. We learned about that the way we learned most appropriate adult behavior: by watching my parents/grandparents/various other adults drink responsibly. As it was, we knew about the huge family risk for alcoholism, saw those closest to us model good drinking behavior, and had no reason to binge drink when we hit 21 (or before). Given the research already mentioned by actress2bjess, you’re right about the goofiness of the law, insofar as the current drinking age is arbitrary; brain-development-wise, it should be 25. And, in my family’s case (and plenty of others), if there’s a strong family history of alcoholism, it would be incredibly dumb to trigger that gene early. The later the first drink, the lower the statistical chance of becoming an alcoholic.
    And I don’t see why changing the drinking age will suddenly change why people get drunk. I don’t gather that most people’s reason, underage or not, is to stick it to the man.

  • Arnobius of Sicca

    It’s a disappointing article. The arguments don’t prove that lowering the drinking age is right. It merely makes use of the appeal to ridicule fallacy to attack the drinking age.

    Since you want to quote Chesterton, here is a quote you ought to consider:

    “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

    This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good idea for somebody. And until we know what that reason was, we cannot judge whether that reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.”

    — G.K. Chesterton “The Drift from Domesticity”. Brave New Family. Ignatius Press. 1990. Page 53

    So… show us you understand why the wall exists and we may accept your reasons for removing it.

    • http://catholiceconomist.wordpress.com/ Buster Adams

      He did explain it, or did you not actually read his article?

  • http://twitter.com/CaffdCatholicMa Karianna

    I’m a Wisconsin girl, born and raised. And there are a few things that ‘Sconnies are known for: The Packers, The Badgers, The Brewers, Supper Clubs, Beer and Brandy. It is not uncommon to finish a meal of Prime Rib and a Spotted Cow with a Brandy Alexander and what fun is a Brandy Alexander if you aren’t going to share? A Hot Toddy is dished out during cold and flu season and brandy does wonders for the teething child. My personal opinion is that for the MOST PART the mystique of alcohol disappears as you are more exposed to it. Now, yes, there are outliers and I respect that. I often wonder how things would look if we lowered the drinking age and raised the driving age? Or at least made it more challenging to get a license?

  • http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/ Laceagate

    Alcohol is almost the equivalent of drugs in this country. There’s been a “war on drugs” for who knows how long, and there’s clearly a “war on booze” as well. If you have even the slightest taste of it, you MUST be an immoral drunk who is on the verge of losing your self-control.

    The problem has a lot to do with the context that alcohol is associated with. Currently, people associate alcohol with drunken frat parties where college kids do stupid things or have bad things happen to them. The idea of having a glass of champagne to toast a couple at a wedding, having a martini with friends at a dinner party, or tasting it in your rum cake are at the back of people’s minds– if they even view alcohol like this.

    Friends of mine who got married when we were 20 thought it was hilarious–and sad– that while they could get married, they couldn’t legally drink, or even attend a cruise for their honeymoon.

  • momofthree

    But I don’t understand how you can see that people acting irresponsibly is the problem not the drink itself, but you cannot see that the same is true for contraception. Millions abuse alcohol, yet we do not consider alcohol intrinsically evil. Why, then is the inanimate object of birth control evil, rather than the misuse of it (outside of marriage, etc.).

    • Marc Barnes

      Well first off the inanimate object isn’t evil, I don’t know if anyone would claim that. The use of it is evil though, in all situations. This is because sex, by its nature, is meant to be procreative and unitive — i.e its never just for babies (thatd be awful) and its never just for pleasure (thatd be lust). To use contraception is to attempt to avoid procreation and is an actual physical/chemical barrier to true unity. Thus sex is reduced. We were made for more.

  • http://livingoak.wordpress.com livingoakheart

    NB: It manages to annoy Southern Baptists, too. Not all, but some.

  • Pr0lif3

    Irritating, yes, but morally repugnant? I’m thoroughly unconvinced. While it’s stupid and should be changed, this is not a law meriting civil disobedience.

  • mcs

    in my country it’s “legal” to drink from age 16, but everybody starts at 14 or less haha. but we know how we’re supposed to deal with alcohol, you dont have to get wasted every night


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X